THE VOICE OF REASON
Solon, (born c. 630 BCE—died c. 560 BCE), Athenian statesman, known as one of the Seven Wise Men of Greece (the others were Chilon of Sparta, Thales of Miletus, Bias of Priene, Cleobulus of Lindos, Pittacus of Mytilene, and Periander of Corinth). Solon ended exclusive aristocratic control of the government, substituted a system of control by the wealthy, and introduced a new and more humane law code. He was also a noted poet.
The state would have been wiser to make civil partnerships obligatory for all couples, heterosexual or same-sex. After that, people could celebrate marriage ceremonies in synagogues, churches or elsewhere as they saw fit, without giving these any legal force or involving a re-definition of “marriage”.
It is disingenuous for Jews to claim that the novel same-sex unions have any halachic foundations or that they are in any way related to Judaism. When movements do what is expedient for their membership rather than maintain any relation with halachah, it creates a clear fault-line in the Jewish world. The rush to follow society’s current mores severs the links a Jew has to the Torah, the ultimate source of morality. This wholesale demolition fails the faith of our ancestors, defying justification.
That so many Jewish leaders feel that adopting gay marriage is supremely Jewish says more about how far they have strayed than how true they are to their own traditions. Why not just say no? Is “no” really only kosher if you are Orthodox?
Attempts to bring Orthodoxy to work with the other movements, over issues such as conversion, now appear utter folly. Until recently, some might have turned a blind eye, arguing that different streams did not hold totally antithetical approaches and had much in common. But same-sex marriage is a “kosher pork” moment. With this latest extreme departure, Orthodoxy and the rest of the Jewish world stand on either side of a gulf, which can only become wider.
"You do what you like, but we will go the extra mile, if you don't mind." That is the safest position to take in an environment of enforced PC Libtardism, I know.
The Jew is libertarian. He will follow his religion as befitting a member of the Chosen People, leaving those who do not wish to follow or cannot keep up to fall by the wayside, thus indirectly proving the superiority of his religion. The Muslim is however under a duty to forbid evil and enjoin good. Judaism is an exclusive golf club, Islam is a political party.
Monday, 17 March 2014, 13:28
Subject: Invite
Dear Claire,
Would you like to be my guest on Weekly Digest, a news review show I present each Thursday morning for Sahar TV (Iran). Each week we look at three news stories and discuss each for 7 minutes in a 30minute programme.
We like opinionated guests from across the political spectrum. My guest this week is Robert Oulds, director of the BrugesGroup.
You receive a fee of £60.
If you have a free slot on a Thursday morning around 9 am let me know.
Regards,
Chris Bambery
Tuesday, 18 March 2014, 20:05
Subject: Re: Invite
Dear Chris
Apologies for not getting back to you sooner, your email got a little "buried" with the others.
Yes, I would be delighted to participate, but do tell me what I need to do so I can prepare properly!
Regards
Claire
Wednesday, 19 March 2014, 14:32
Subject: Re: Invite
Hi Claire,
We discuss three news stories in the headlines that week for 7 minutes each. I send them out 48 hours before. I can't predict what they'll be much in advance (if I could I'd be wealthy).
Sound good?
Chris B
Wednesday, 19 March 2014, 14:54
Subject: Re: Invite
Hi Chris
Sure, I'll give it a go if you want, but bear in mind that I haven't done it before. Is this is to be done by Skype?
Claire
Friday, 21 March 2014, 15:55
Subject: Weekly Digest Thursdays on Sahar TV
Hi Chris
Just wondering if we we still doing this.
Claire
Friday, 21 March 2014, 18:04
Subject: Re: Weekly Digest Thursdays on Sahar TV
Dear Claire,
Yes your on but choose a date - 3 April free or 1 May onwards.
Chris B
Friday, 21 March 2014, 18:40
Subject: Re: Weekly Digest Thursdays on Sahar TV
Let's make it 3 April then.
Is it to be done by Skype?
Is there a previous show for me to view so I can get used to its format?
Claire
Friday, 21 March 2014, 19:52
Subject: Re: Weekly Digest Thursdays on Sahar TV
Hi,
No we film it in a TV studion in deepest Acton. watch this episode
April - you are booked.
Chris Bambery
22 March 2014 my comment was posted and displayed at his website in response to his speech below.
Fascism and Nazism was a reaction against liberalism and representative democracy.
Fascism was not antisemitic in Italy because Mussolini was not antisemitic while Nazism took a virulently antisemitic form because Hitler was antisemitic, but it was the nature of Christianity to be antisemitic. If you read Mein Kampf, you will find that Hitler did not start off antisemitic and conflates Jews with liberals.
Let us have a different narrative, please, and accept that people who are not naturally political or ideological are made uneasy about radical changes to their country and therefore wish to express their unease so that their government listens to them.
If immigration upsets people, then why continue upsetting them?
If the working classes are no longer fit for the purpose of work then make them fit for purpose, rather than seek to replace them with immigrant workers.
Only good government will prevent the chaos that you fear.
Tuesday, 1 April 2014, 0:49
Subject: Re: Weekly Digest Thursdays on Sahar TV
Hi Chris
Just checking if it is all happening on Thursday!
Regards
Claire
Tuesday, 1 April 2014, 10:36
Subject: Re: Weekly Digest Thursdays on Sahar TV
Hi Claire,
Because its Islamic Republic Day today and the two further days of holiday they inform me there is no show this week because the studio is shut!
Big apology.
Free dates are 1 May and 15 May onwards if I can re-book you.
Regards,
Chris Bambery
Tuesday, 1 April 2014, 10:52
Subject: Re: Weekly Digest Thursdays on Sahar TV
Hi Chris
1 May is good for me.
Regards
Claire
Sunday, 27 April 2014, 20:25
Subject: Re: Weekly Digest Thursdays on Sahar TV
Hi Chris
Just checking if we are still on for Thursday 1 May.
Regards
Claire
Sunday, 27 April 2014, 22:04
Subject: Re: Weekly Digest Thursdays on Sahar TV
Hi Claire,
We are on!
I'll email Tuesday with what we're discussing - any preferences.
Chris B
http://ask.fm/oneparty4all/answer/112864473473 Please enquire with Sahar TV whether the interview will be streamed live or recorded and put online afterwards. We, your dear fans, are waiting with itchy feet and sweaty palms for this news.
29 April 2014 2:25 PM
To Chris Bambery
Hi Chris
Did you say you would email me today about the topics you wanted discussed on your show?
Claire
29 April 2014 3:26 PM
To Chris Bambery
Hi Chris
Is there a problem? I sense something is not quite right or you would have got back to me by now with the items I am supposed to be preparing.
If you have changed your mind then just let me know, but it is a shame if you have been got at or have had the frighteners put on you!
Claire
29 April 2014 4:00 PM
Dear Claire,
Apologies but given your political affiliations and views we cannot continue with you as a guest.
Regards,
Chris Bambery
Tuesday, 29 April 2014, 16:04
Subject: Re: Sahar TV
Which views do you have a problem with? I have so many!
Regards
Claire
I don't expect a response, to be honest.
Don't you think it rather odd that Bambery is now claiming that he was not already aware of my views and my political affiliations until now? He is after all a journalist.
Do you think the Reds put the frighteners on him? Did they threaten him and his family with violence?
He didn't seem terribly interested in speaking to me to see if I would be OK for TV. I might have a terrible stutter or be as mad as a hatter, as so many people claim I am. I suppose all this could even be a form of psychological warfare.
I have contacted Sahar TV to check with them if they do indeed find my views unacceptable with a link to this post. Press TV are quite comfortable with the British Right last time I looked, and Sahar TV are linked to them, I believe. Either Bambery is doing this for personal reasons, or he has been got at. Either way the reasons of a weedy white man of the Left tend to be venal and dishonourable.
Then, they thought he might be a child of a rioter.
And then they talked about their "negro alarm".
Then they discovered that the shit kid was white and middle class.
He is also named and identified on Facebook. The saddest bit was where it said "No Friends To Show."
http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2014/04/was-boy-who-stabbed-his-teacher-to.html
Was Ann Maguire the victim of liberal parenting? Is liberal parenting better than Trojan Horse Muslim parenting? What is so great about liberal parenting? What is so great about being a divorced working mum? What should happen to him? What should happen to his mother? What should happen to his father? Would he have done what he did if he had not been deprived of his father by his mother? Why did his mother deprive him of his father?
Would the return of male and parental authority return Western to society to sanity? Why are Western men so afraid of criticising sluts and bad mothers?
1. Is autism just another name for bad parenting or an irrational or bad choice of male partner for the mother concerned?
2. Why do feminists never even think to examine the quality of the parenting Adam Lanza might have received from his mother whom he murdered?
Because they don't want people challenging and criticising feminism
Because they feel a woman is never responsible for anything
Because they already know they are bad mothers
3. What do you think happens to a society in which most of its mothers are bad mothers?
Bad things
Good things
4. "A woman's most important contribution to society is generally considered to be her ability to raise happy, well-adjusted children." Has feminism caused the quality of mothering to improve or deteriorate?
Deteriorate
Improve
5. Was Adam Lanza the victim of no-fault divorce and the bad mothering by his gold-digging mother who deprived him of a father so she could live in her ex-husband's house without the inconvenience of having him around?
Yes
No
6. "A woman's most important contribution to society is generally considered to be her ability to raise happy, well-adjusted children."
Agree
Disagree
7. If Adam Lanza's father was still living with him in the family home, do you think Adam Lanza would have shot his mother and then gone on a gun rampage?
No
Yes
8. Should the government discourage wives from divorcing their husbands for trivial reasons to protect their children from single parenthood?
Yes
No
9. Should no fault divorce be abolished?
Yes
No
10. No-fault divorce makes it easy for wives to divorce husbands for trivial reasons. Do you believe Nancy Lanza divorced her husband for trivial reasons?
Yes
No
11. Should Adam Lanza's mother escape responsibility for being a bad mother just because she is dead?
No
Yes
12. To what extent was Adam Lanza's mother's poor parenting the cause of this shooting?
1. Imagine if there are two groups of people: one produced mainly suicide-bombing sons, and one produced mainly teacher-murdering sons. Which is morally superior?
The people who produced suicide bombers
The people who produced teacher-murdering sons
It is my belief that a person who murders out of conviction for his cause is better than someone who murders for personal reasons.
You can imagine an animal killing another animal for annoying him, but you cannot imagine an animal killing another for a political reason. A political reason is of course a moral reason, however misconceived.
It is our capacity for being able to conceive of and practise morality that makes us superior to lower animals. Muslim parents may produce suicide bombers, but it is single mothers who practise liberal parenting who produce murderous twisted shits like the boy who murdered his teacher in front of her class. The single mothers of the murderers of Jamie Bulger were liberal parents par excellence. How long will the liberal media and the liberal political establishment remain afraid to criticise the parenting skills of single mothers, who have the vote?
2. Is indiscriminate universal suffrage a grave and continuing error?
6. Are divorced mothers bad mothers for the same reason that SSMs are bad mothers?
7. Are SSMs parasitical?
8. Is there any danger of the parasites overwhelming the host by sheer weight of numbers?
9. Should we worry that there are more SSMs than there are mothers of legitimate children with the vote?
10. Should women have been given the vote?
11. Would you have given women the vote if you knew this was going to happen to your country and your civilisation?
12. If you were a murderer and you murdered for political reasons would you be a better person than a murderer who murdered for personal reasons?
Yes
No
13. What are the advantages of having a son who was a suicide bomber over having a son who stabbed his teacher to death in class for "victimising" him?
The practical advantage, I would suggest, is that the inconvenience of having to visit your suicide bomber son in prison will not even arise because he will be conveniently dead, while people might expect you to visit your teacher-murdering son, and you will also be faced with questions about him and the kind of liberal single working mother parenting he received long long after the event.
14. If your son had to be a murderer, which would you rather his reason be?
He was a terrorist killing to further political ends.
He stabs his teacher to death for "victimising" him.
15. Which makes you a worse parent?
Your son stabs his teacher to death in class.
Your son was a suicide bomber.
16. Which would you choose if you had to choose?
Your son stabs his teacher to death in class for "victimising" him.
Your son was a suicide bomber.
17. What kind of parenting would the boy who stabbed teacher have received if his father had been in the home?
18. Why are no questions being asked by female journalists about liberal parenting boy who stabbed teacher received from his working divorced mother?
19. Should parents be made legally responsible for the actions of their murderous shit kids?
20. Would the boy who stabbed teacher to death not have done so had he not been deprived of his father?
21. What kind of a mother produces a son who stabs his teacher to death in class?
22. Is honour killing the answer when you produce a shit kid who stabs his teacher to death in class?
23. Did you know that the elder brother of the boy who murdered teacher had no social skills either according to his neighbours?
Rebecca Hardy, 21, said: ‘He would never look at anybody. He would literally walk face-down to the ground with his bag on his back. Once or twice I’ve tried to get him to make eye contact and smiled, but he’s never let on.’
She added: ‘They’re both quiet boys – if you said hello they probably wouldn’t say hello back. I would say they were a bit weird.’
24. Do shit parents produce shit murderous kids?
25. What would you want to happen to the shit kid who stabbed his teacher to death in front of his class if Ann Maguire had been your mother or your wife?
I would judge a mother on her morals and conduct towards her children. Not all children listen to or agree with their parents, not to mention external pressures from society and peers to steer the young away from the traditional and the established. Parents are just scapegoats for individual failure.
The fact that these females are reckless slags who love the feeling of a man ejaculating inside them and then use abortion as a simple form of contraception.
Now some of you may think that is coarse, rude, incorrect even.
But it's the plain and simple truth.
"Lisa" claimed she didn't have any sex education. Did Jane Dreaper ask her which school she went to? Could she be the sort of woman who lies?
The more promiscuous the woman the more mentally unstable, and the more she lies to escape the consequences of her stupidity and promiscuity.
Do you think this "Lisa" has the kind of parents who would have withdrawn her from sex education? Is she still in touch with them?
Is it possible that "Lisa" could have been truanting having under-aged sex during her sex education classes?
Did "Lisa" pay for her four abortions or was the taxpayer forced to cough up for this slag's sex life through the NHS? Liberals pay taxes too, don't they? When will male taxpayers wise up, even if he likes to think of himself as a good liberal? Is the male liberal just a big mug these days, or even the biggest mug of all?
Griffin made three huge media games. His Question Time performance was a joke, this one single event was probably the biggest individual failure that befell the BNP. Afterwards he had no credibility. He came over as a coward - a pathetic, twitching, gibbering, silly face pulling, lying imbecile. It was a hammer blow. The next media gaffe was the mis-handling of the EHRC case, he should have simply accepted non-whites into the party. It was a case he couldn't win, but coming out of it looking less racist he could have turned it to his advantage - he however didn't. He fought it in court and came over as if he wanted to stop patriots joining him simply down to the tone of their skin, this also cost the party hundreds of thousands of pounds. So not only did it ensure he was seen as a racist, it cost him financially. Finally, running to the press claiming I was trying to kill him ruined what was left of the party's image in the run up to the General Election. No one is voting for a party where the members are killing each other off, it made the party look as bad as the media claimed!
Secondly: Man Management
Griffin always falls out with people. This massively destabilised the party's inner machinery. Every time someone got used to doing a role well - he would sack them or fall out with them. The team rarely worked as bonds were never allowed to form. Dozens and dozens of talented individuals who had started to get to grips with their roles were cast out in favour of 'newbies' who had to learn the role from scratch. Thus rarely did anyone get to grips with doing a job properly. I worked design for 10 years and it took me a long time to get as good as I did. Many people never had that time and rarely did an area of the party enjoy that stability and growth. Griffin also poured resources into idiotic projects. He would rather spend a full time wage employing someone to do 'freedom of information requests' or 'record songs' than he would pay a full time elections officer or council support officer. He would always favour a crazy scheme over a sound one based around political growth. This drew resources away from the front line and wasted them on projects that never bore fruit.
Thirdly: Financial Shenanigans
Griffin could never stay solvent - hence why he has been a bankrupt twice. It was always spend, spend, spend - and often on silly things. Bloated expenses, silly projects, offices in the middle of nowhere, recording studios, battered cars - you name it he would waste money on it. He would always spend more than he should and never worked to a budget, hence crippling debts that eventually destroyed the ability of the part to function. Unpaid bills caused supply chains to be cut and eventually the party even scrapped institutions like Identity Magazine - which at one point was being sent out to nearly 15,000 people. Freedom was drastically cut back, offices ended up being closed and sadly nearly all of the extremely expensive machinery that was 'invested' in was lost due to poor record keeping and bad man management.
Q: I am sure that Cleese does not think of his being a comedian to be his defining identity. His age is irrelevant, and you have said you would consider marriage proposals from men older than him. I actually think there is a political point you could make by marrying him.
Q: I believe you and Cleese could draw up a pre-nup using Islamic marital contracts as a template. Allow the document to be publicly available, thus garnering media attention to your idea. Use Cleese's dreadful experience with alimony from his last ex-wife to support your argument for these contracts.
A: That is indeed how I would go about it, but first there must be an invitation to treat for matters to proceed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Offer_and_acceptance#Invitations_to_treat
It does not have to proceed to completion. Even if negotiations were abortive they would be usefully illustrative.
Q: I wish to add this: You have said you would consider proposals from men further to the Left than Cleese. You once stating conquering a leftie would be a nice achievement. He has expressed conservative views on culture and immigration. You can make him right-wing with your wiles and persuasion.
Follow Secular Koranism at http://www.quora.com/Secular-Koranism It will bring back the patriarchy and kill the feminazism of the matriarchy stone dead.
Fight for Free Speech at Quora!
Up with Free Speech!
Down with Feminazi PC Libtard Admins!
PLEASE help me fight the libtardation of the West!
"At the root of the crisis lies a radicalised and politicised view of Islam, an ideology that distorts and warps Islam’s true message. "
What is Islam's true message?
"in the centre of this maelstrom, is Israel. Its alliance with the USA, its partnership with leading countries of Europe, and the fact that it is a Western democracy, mean that its fate is never going to be a matter of indifference. Over these past years, with considerable skill, the Israelis have also built up relationships with China and with Russia. These aren't the same as their long standing Western alliances but they have significance. Were the Israelis to be pulled into a regional conflict, there is no realistic way that the world could or would want to shrug it off. For the moment, Israel has successfully stayed aloof from the storm around it. But the one thing the last few years has taught us (and them) is that we can expect the unexpected."
What would happen if the West remained neutral?
"It is in the Middle East that the future of Islam will be decided. By this I mean the future of its relationship with politics. This is controversial because the world of politics is uncomfortable talking about religion; because some will say that really the problems are not religious but political; and even because – it is true – that the largest Muslim populations are to be found outside the region not inside it."
In my view the distinction between politics and religion is a distinction without a difference. If not, what is religious and what is political and where is the line drawn?
"underneath the turmoil and revolution of the past years is one very clear and unambiguous struggle: between those with a modern view of the Middle East, one of pluralistic societies and open economies, where the attitudes and patterns of globalisation are embraced; and, on the other side, those who want to impose an ideology born out of a belief that there is one proper religion and one proper view of it, and that this view should, exclusively, determine the nature of society and the political economy."
Blair implies that the "modern view" is the only correct one. Why would he complain of the other side thinking that their view is the only correct one too?
"It is crucially important in this description not to confuse the issue of religion and politics, with the question of religiosity. Many of those totally opposed to the Islamist ideology are absolutely devout Muslims."
In my view the distinction between politics and religion is a distinction without a difference. If not, what is religious and what is political and where is the line drawn?
"it is often the most devout who take most exception to what they regard as the distortion of their faith by those who claim to be ardent Muslims whilst acting in a manner wholly in contradiction to the proper teaching of the Koran. "
What is "the proper teaching of the Koran"?
"Within the Middle East itself, the result has been horrible, with people often facing a choice between authoritarian Government that is at least religiously tolerant; and the risk that in throwing off the Government they don't like, they end up with a religiously intolerant quasi-theocracy."
What does he mean by being "religiously intolerant"?
"In many cases, it is clear that they regard themselves as part of a spectrum, with a difference of view as to how to achieve the goals of Islamism, not a difference as to what those goals are; and in certain cases, they will support the use of violence.
At this point it must again be emphasised: it is not Islam itself that gives rise to this ideology. It is an interpretation of Islam, actually a perversion of it which many Muslims abhor. There used to be such interpretations of Christianity which took us years to eradicate from our mainstream politics."
What "interpretations of Christianity" he is referring to? Was he referring to the IRA?
"Your security is not in the hands of Kerry, Bush or Al Qaeda. Your security is in your own hands," bin Laden said, referring to the president and his Democratic opponent. "Any state that does not mess with our security, has naturally guaranteed its own security."
Admitting for the first time that he ordered the Sept. 11 attacks, bin Laden said he did so because of injustices against the Lebanese and Palestinians by Israel and the United States.
To what extent has the West addressed this grievance since 2001?
Questions you could ask about Claire Khaw on your politics blog:
"Is Claire Khaw mad?"
"If you think Claire Khaw is mad, what are your reasons for doing so?"
"What is the most insane thing Claire Khaw has ever said, to your knowledge?"
"If you find Claire Khaw's solutions detestable, what are your reasons for doing so?"
"Do you hate Claire Khaw more because she is right rather than because she is wrong? (If you say she is right, then it must mean that your government has been wrong about domestic and foreign policy for several decades.)"
"If Claire Khaw were white and working class and male, would you be more or less likely to support her?"
"Is there anything Claire Khaw has said that you think makes sense?"
"Do you know is meant when people used to say 'Marriage is an institution'?
"Do people in the West respect marriage?"
"Should people respect marriage?"
"Is gay marriage not only immoral but also an oxymoron?"
"If you could choose anyone to be leader of the BNP, would you choose Claire Khaw?"
"Is Claire Khaw a force for good or evil?"
"What do you think of Claire Khaw, the woman who conceived of Secular Koranism?"
"Would Claire Khaw change the image of British nationalism and nationalism generally if her ideas were adopted?"
"Is Claire Khaw right about how feminism has adversely affected Western men and ruined their characters and morals?"
"Is Claire Khaw right about how men can just take control again if only they dared to assert their masculine authority?"
"Is Claire Khaw right about why, out of the patriarchy and the matriarchy, the patriarchy is always the lesser evil?"
"Would you like to attempt to overthrow the matriarchy and re-establish the patriarchy through joining Claire Khaw's keyboard army?"
"If keyboard activism were ideological warfare, is Claire Khaw a Field Marshal?"
"Which party would you like Claire Khaw to be Director of Communications for: UKIP or the BNP?"
"Is Claire Khaw capable of making nationalism an attractive, inclusive and morally respectable ideology that is no longer racist, antisemitic or Islamophobic?"
"Would you describe Claire Khaw as a philosopher?"
Since 2006 the proportion of children born to married British parents is thought to have dropped below 50 per cent for the first time. They are being outweighed by those who are part of cohabiting couples or single-parent families.
It comes as data from the Office for National Statistics show that women are having more children than at any time since the 1970s.
Thinking Allowed in association with the British Sociological Association announces a new annual award for a study that has made a significant contribution to ethnography: the in-depth analysis of the everyday life of a culture or sub-culture.
**Entries are now closed for this award, the winning entry will be announced in April 2014**
Are you involved in social science research and completing or will have completed an ethnography this year? The Award is open to any UK resident currently employed as a teacher or researcher or studying as a postgraduate in a UK institution of higher education.
An entry should be a completed ethnography, a qualitative research project which provides a detailed description of the practices of a group or culture. Any sole authored book or peer reviewed research article published during the calendar year of the award will be eligible.
The judges for the Award are Professor Dick Hobbs, Professor Henrietta Moore, Dr Louise Westmarland, Professor Bev Skeggs. The Chair is Professor Laurie Taylor. (Please do not contact any judges directly).
The judges will be looking for work which displays flair, originality and clarity, alongside sound methodology. The work should make a significant contribution to knowledge and understanding in the relevant area of research.
The panel of judges will select six finalists, and from that shortlist the judges will select an overall winner who will be awarded a prize of £1000.
The winner of the Award will be announced at the BSA Annual Conference in April 2014.
Damn it, I wish I had known about it before. BNP supporters and the British would have been my subject.
Why are they the way they are? Cos they are poor and plebeian and everyone expects the poor and plebeian to suffer. People might care for them if they were fit for purpose. Being working class they should be fit for the purpose of work but they are not. They cannot compete with the immigrant worker even in the field of unskilled manual work.
The BNP consist mostly of beta males and because no one finds them sexy or marriageable, nobody cares what happens to them including their women who prefer to marry Muslims and other races just to get a better quality male partner. Their women - who are mostly SSMs - another sub-species I have been studying at https://www.facebook.com/pages/Should-Spinster-Single-Mothers-be-lashed-100-times/417696111659379?fref=ts - control them. Beta males under the thumb of omega females do not engender respect, merely disgust and revulsion by members of more patriarchal societies.
They only go on about Muslim grooming but never question why there are so many white girls who are the ready victims of Muslim sex predators. This is because they would have to question the morals of their mothers who are SSMs and SSMs are the only kind of women they have any dealings with. If they offended SSMs they would get no nookie, which is why they stay quiet.
But if they did start blaming the morals of their women then something might happen in the way of a political discussion, but these moral retards would rather have regular sex than risk saying anything that might threaten their supply of slut sex.
These men are called MCSFs - short for Morally-Compromised Slut-Fuckers.
Most British men are MCSFs, most British women are sluts, most British mothers are SSMs, and most British children are bastards.
No BNP supporter will explicitly support marriage because they are all sexually compromised MCSFs.
They will not discuss what it means to respect marriage because they know they will have to end up agreeing with me that to properly respect marriage one must logically prohibit extramarital sex, and this would mean that their supply of cheap slut sex would be threatened. Since they are all atheists and do not believe in an afterlife of 72 virgins, they feel they must take their pleasures where they find them.
Because these men either have no offspring or have lost touch with them they do not particularly care what happens to their offspring after they die.
What the BNP is the rest of Britain will become: a demented matriarchy.
Robert Mugabe said.
"There appears to be a kind of overall dementia affecting the minds of the West.”
One you are there downvote all comments that sound like libtardery.
If you are not clear, come back and ask me.
If keyboard activism were warfare, I am Field Marshal. Do not forget this.
We shall oust the libtards and defenestrate the feminists, and by doing so save Western Civilisation from Sluts and the Demented Matriarchy making our descendants stupider and stupider, sluttier and sluttier and more and more bastard, degenerate and retarded with their libtardery.
So are we forbidden by the Catholick Religion: to say there be three Gods, or three Lords.
The Father is made of none: neither created, nor begotten.
The Son is of the Father alone: not made, nor created, but begotten.
The Holy Ghost is of the Father and of the Son: neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.
So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons: one Holy Ghost, not three Holy Ghosts.
And in this Trinity none is afore, or after other: none is greater, or less than another;
But the whole three Persons are co-eternal together: and co-equal.
So that in all things, as is aforesaid: the Unity in Trinity, and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped.
He therefore that will be saved: must thus think of the Trinity.
Furthermore it is necessary to everlasting salvation: that he also believe rightly the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ.
For the right Faith is that we believe and confess: that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and Man;
God, of the Substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds: and Man, of the Substance of his Mother, born in the world;
Perfect God, and Perfect Man: of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting;
Equal to the Father, as touching his Godhead: and inferior to the Father, as touching his Manhood.
Who although he be God and Man: yet he is not two, but one Christ;
One, not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh: but by taking of the Manhood into God;
One altogether, not by confusion of Substance: but by unity of Person.
For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man: so God and Man is one Christ.
Who suffered for our salvation: descended into hell, rose again the third day from the dead.
He ascended into heaven, he sitteth on the right hand of the Father, God Almighty: from whence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead.
At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies: and shall give account for their own works.
And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting: and they that have done evil into everlasting fire.
This is the Catholick Faith: which except a man believe faithfully, he cannot be saved.
This is the doctrine of the Trinity, which is a condition of being a Christian. If you do good works and led a good life but don't believe in this mumbo jumbo, you shall not be saved, and will go to hell.
Q2: What is the main difference between Muslims and Jews and Christians?
A3: The Jews and Muslims deny the Trinity. The Spanish Inquisition was all about Christians torturing Muslims and Jews for not believing in the Trinity. Even the ones who converted to Christianity were still tortured because it was felt that they did not really really believe in this mumbo-jumbo.
Q3: How many people in this country who call themselves Christians actually believe in the Trinity or even know that they have to believe in this mumbo-jumbo?
A3: We will only know after the Church of England conducted a YouGov poll. The number is very likely to be minuscule. Does the Archbishop of Canterbury himself really believe all this mumbo-jumbo and hocus-pocus? Does the Pope himself?
Both the Bible and Koran forbid usury, but that is in fact what the City of London is in the business of doing.
Q5: How Christian is usury?
A5: Only Jews are allows to practise usury and only against gentiles.
Exodus 22:24 (25)—If thou lend money to any of My people, even to the poor with thee, thou shalt not be to him as a creditor; neither shall ye lay upon him interest.
Leviticus 25:36— Take thou no interest of him or increase; but fear thy God; that thy brother may live with thee.
Leviticus 25:37— Thou shalt not give him thy money upon interest, nor give him thy victuals for increase.
Deuteronomy 23:20 (19)—Thou shalt not lend upon interest to thy brother: interest of money, interest of victuals, interest of any thing that is lent upon interest.
Deuteronomy 23:21 (20)—Unto a foreigner thou mayest lend upon interest; but unto thy brother thou shalt not lend upon interest; that the LORD thy God may bless thee in all that thou puttest thy hand unto, in the land whither thou goest in to possess it.
Ezekiel 18:17—that hath withdrawn his hand from the poor, that hath not received interest nor increase, hath executed Mine ordinances, hath walked in My statutes; he shall not die for the iniquity of his father, he shall surely live.
Psalm 15:5—He that putteth not out his money on interest, nor taketh a bribe against the innocent. He that doeth these things shall never be moved.
"Thou oughtest therefore to have put my money to the exchangers, and then at my coming I should have received mine own with usury." —Matthew 25:27
"Well then, you should have put my money on deposit with the bankers, so that when I returned I would have received it back with interest.." —Matthew 25:27
"…Out of thine own mouth will I judge thee, thou wicked servant. Thou knewest that I was an austere man, taking up that I laid not down, and reaping that I did not sow. Wherefore then gavest not thou my money into the bank, that at my coming I might have required mine own with usury?" —Luke 19:22-23
"Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you." —Matthew 5:42
"And if you lend to those from whom you expect repayment, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, expecting to be repaid in full. But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back. Then your reward will be great, and you will be children of the Most High, because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked." —Luke 6:34-35
"Give, and it will be given to you. A good measure, pressed down, shaken together and running over, will be poured into your lap. For with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.” —Luke 6:38
Those who charge usury are in the same position as those controlled by the devil's influence. This is because they claim that usury is the same as commerce. However, God permits commerce, and prohibits usury. Thus, whoever heeds this commandment from his Lord, and refrains from usury, he may keep his past earnings, and his judgment rests with God. As for those who persist in usury, they incur Hell, wherein they abide forever (Al-Baqarah 2:275)
God condemns usury, and blesses charities. God dislikes every disbeliever, guilty. Those who believe and do good works and establish worship and pay the poor-due, their reward is with their Lord and there shall no fear come upon them neither shall they grieve. O you who believe, you shall observe God and refrain from all kinds of usury, if you are believers. If you do not, then expect a war from God and His messenger. But if you repent, you may keep your capitals, without inflicting injustice, or incurring injustice. If the debtor is unable to pay, wait for a better time. If you give up the loan as a charity, it would be better for you, if you only knew. (Al-Baqarah 2:276-280)
O you who believe, you shall not take usury, compounded over and over. Observe God, that you may succeed. (Al-'Imran 3:130)
And for practicing usury, which was forbidden, and for consuming the people's money illicitly. We have prepared for the disbelievers among them painful retribution. (Al-Nisa 4:161)
The usury that is practiced to increase some people's wealth, does not gain anything at God. But if people give to charity, seeking God's pleasure, these are the ones who receive their reward many fold. (Ar-Rum 30:39)
Are the people claiming that this country is Christian even Christian?
Have they been asked what they think being a Christian means?
Do they even know?
Do Jack Straw and David Cameron believe in the doctrine of the Trinity?
That a Prime Minister who calls himself a Conservative and a Christian who inflicts gay marriage on the British and gets away with it, is the ultimate test of how Christian a country is.
Britain is as Christian as a skeleton used to be human.
Britain is as Christian as a man wanting a sex change says he is deep down always been a woman.
That is how Christian Britain is.
Why is anyone even surprised that Muslims want nothing to do with this kind of "Christianity"?
The Archbishop of Canterbury said that he had been warned while on his visit to South Sudan that the Church of England accepting gay marriage could lead to some communities believing having Christians among them could make them gay and reacting by murdering the Christians.
"The mass grave had 369 bodies in it and I was standing with the relatives. That burns itself into your soul, as does the suffering of gay people in this country."
No, they have not given me a reason, and it is apparently not their policy to do so. It saves them from having to justify themselves, you see, or being forced to engage in some philosophical debate about what is "possibly insincere" and what kind of attention is needed when your question "needs attention".
Should I be nasty and tell people not to use Quora?
Of course not. I am a forgiving sort of soul and I forgive libtards, for they know not what they do, being indoctrinated into thinking that the worship of the right to have extramarital sex trumps the worship of anything else in the entire universe. They are PC Libtards and Feminists who cannot countenance their views being challenged without instinctively clicking DELETE and BAN.
In spite of this I shall encourage people to use Quora and suggest clever new ways for them to market it.
I know Quora is now inquorate without me.
My latest suggestion was to get people to pay to be members of a Free Speech version of Quora. That wasn't well received for some reason. I would be prepared to pay for the free speech version of Quora, and I am sure others would too.
One day I shall return to Quora to conquer and be crowned Queen.
I know they already miss me and know how much traffic I generated just by being there. I could have been Queen of Quora by the end of the month, but the female admins weren't having any of it. If I did become Queen of Quora, feminism would fall and Quora would be blamed for the downfall of feminism.
While the feminist admins successfully effected my exile, there will be their male colleagues who dislike the way how things are done in a matriarchy. All the men have to do is tell them that free speech reigns supreme, not feminist victimhood and undeserved female privilege.
They just need to take courage and aim their arrows at the matriarchal monster squatting over them ....
This could be objectively measured by the nature and number of actions taken against Quora members judged to be offensive by male and female admins and members.
Taken as whole it could suggest that women are more censorious than men. Bearing in mind that women can vote, this would have an impact on our liberties that would be increasingly limited by government legislation introduced in an attempt to chase the female vote.
Claire Khaw - edit blocked from Quora for no apparent reason.
Is Quora inquorate without Claire Khaw?
A Facebook friend asks: "Is it possible, in the UK, to meet a sane woman under the age of 30 who hasn't already given birth to another man's mistake?" What does this say about the UK?
Possibly Insincere Question: This question has been flagged as possibly insincere.
When this topic tag is applied to a question, the question must also be reported along with a specific explanation as to what makes the question appear insincere.
Inappropriate application of this topic tag will be considered vandalism.
If you are the question asker, and would like moderation to consider removing the tag, you should both (1) send an email to moderation@quora.com and (2) post a comment on the question. Since this is a debate about the intent of the question asker, it is generally helpful if the asker is not anonymous; Quora Moderation is more likely to remove the topic if they know the question asker's name.
"How can a fact be "possibly insincere"? This comment was in fact made and it is well-known that there are many single mothers in Britain, as well as the rest of the West. Is Quora trying to stifle debate on a genuine social issue?"
http://www.quora.com/Judith-Meyer another female admin has flagged the question "Has feminism increased taxes and decreased liberty?" as "possibly insincere".
I believe I have now been permanently banned, at around 1700 hrs BST.
Anyone who would like to take it up with them should join and ask them:
"What did Claire Khaw say that was so bad that she had to be banned from Quora?"
Can you imagine yourself being immediately banned for daring to ask such a question by the female admins? I can. But do it anyway, if you value free speech, just to make a point.
On 21 April 2014 17:31,
Claire Khaw wrote:
May I know if I have been banned from Quora permanently? If so, would you like to give a reason?
Claire Khaw
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2014 18:53:38 +0100
From: Tatiana Estevez
Hello Claire
Yes, you have been banned from Quora permanently.
Kind regards,
Tatiana
Quora Admin
To: Tatiana Estevez
Subject: RE: Blocked from editing
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2014 18:58:46 +0100
May I know why, please?
Claire Khaw
Achilleas Vortselas http://www.quora.com/Achilleas-Vortselas redirected the question.
Achilleas Vortselas removed a question redirect.
Achilleas Vortselas redirected the question.
Needs Attention: This question has been flagged as needing attention from moderators. Moderators will look at this question and may decide to remove this topic tag, delete the question, or indicate that the question needs improvement in some way.
Quora Community: This topic is for questions about the personal preferences and interests of people who use Quora. Questions and answers with this topic are only shown in feed to people who follow the topic.
"I'm an admin and employee at Quora. Fyi - we don't disclose reasons why people are banned because it's not fair to the person.
You should know that Adam and Charlie (our founders) emphasize process, fairness, and rule-based decisions in moderation and it's important to us that we apply this philosophy in our choices."
The reason people find it hard to believe you're being sincere is because the opinions you've expressed here are so extreme and unusual that to most people they come across as absurd. I imagine this is a natural reaction for most people who aren't on the far-right/extreme end of the MRA thing.
I know plenty conservatives who are opposed to gay marriage, who would balk at the description 'pc liberal', yet would still react with disbelief were you to repeat the opinions you've expressed here to them.
Especially considering all the hard work that you do to spread love towards single mothers.
Or maybe it was how much you help to spread free love on your blog
You seem very tolerant and full of love